JAlexoid

23 ms·

331.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
> It is just an intermediary to content that I would enjoy if it was published on any other website. Then go to those other websites. This argument is akin to saying that I will disregard any FOSS license terms of any code posted to GitH
332.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
Except that most ad revenue on YouTube goes to the creators, that aren't "a trillion dollar company" This is as dumb as protesting restaurant servers low hourly wage, by not tipping anything.
333.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
You're not granted access to the video feed, unconditionally. You know, same as you're not granted any GPL code unconditionally. If you want unconditional video streams - Wikimedia is the place for you.
334.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
Well... I'm a creator. I choose to post to YouTube with a reasonable expectation that you're either a YouTube Premium subscriber or will produce ad revenue. None of that entitles you to see my work on your terms, no matter how (in
335.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
YouTube isn't 90% of the marker share. And yes, you are entitled. You've just rationalized it in a way that doesn't cause any cognitive dissonance. I make woodworking videos on YouTube. The majority of ad revenue hits my acco
336.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
So what you're saying is that I, someone that makes woodworking videos on YouTube, have to accept you getting my videos without compensation. Because I, not you, choose to host them on YouTube and give Google about half of revenue from
337.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
You should also be aware, that that 45% also includes licensing of copyrighted content.
338.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
YouTube gets 4.3Petabytes of data every day. To just receive, transmit and store that in AWS S3, just one day's worth of data is - 317 thousand dollars. That's literally doing nothing other than transmission and storage. Just that
339.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
I have a great solution in that case - just block all Google's services and don't use them. Just don't complain when more and more IT news publications put up a paywall, because ad revenue isn't enough to pay your salary
340.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
I hate how hypocritical this whole issue is. People will go on a massive tirade, over GPL violation... then turn around and completely disregard the license terms that content is being delivered to them with. The irony of it all is that the
341.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
You can, however, skip them immediately.
342.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
Google tracking you and you screwing over content creators using ad-blocking aren't inherently linked. The majority of ad spend goes directly to content owners.
343.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
So... Logically, you also don't use YouTube and watch their videos on Patreon... Because Patreon also hosts videos.
344.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
> "I don't watch this" and "I would never watch this under any circumstance" are different. OK. How is this even relevant. Both YouTube and Netflix have easily over 90% of content that "I would never watch u
345.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
So... Why do you use YouTube? Ask your creators to move to something like Patreon and you'll be free. You'll have to pay, but you will not be paying Google. Why do you personally think that you're entitled to consume content
346.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
You can feel whatever you want, your rationalizations are wrong though. And if someone uses false rationalizations to use ad-blockers, while claiming to support the content creators - I can only sense hypocrisy and entitlement.
347.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
> "99% of videos on youtube", not "99% of videos I watch". And in the context, this is even less sensible. 99% of content on Netflix is what "you" don't watch. So there's literally no difference on
348.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
Your favourite creator can post a video on Patreon, that you pay for, and immediately remove it. Pointing the finger at YouTube like it's a unique problem is...
349.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
> 99% of videos on youtube are not something I would pay for or expected to be paid for uploading Then you just use the ad-supported version, which seems to be what suits you. > On youtube I can pay and content of interest could be de
350.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
Creators get the income from views, with any copyrighted material licensing subtracted and a cut to YouTube. But no one is forcing you to use YouTube, it's just way more accessible for any content creator that can't spend weeks in
351.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
Most of ads on YouTube are there to cover copyrighted music. YouTube Music is the free addon.
352.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
YouTube isn't the only one. YouTube isn't even the majority of online video, it's just the biggest one. Others are just so much worse or charge for storage on the creator side... but they don't have ads. Today you can co
353.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
YouTube Premium is ad-free YouTube. That's literally "paying for YouTube". But it sure seems that you're trying to rationalize your unwillingness to pay for something and it does sound very entitled.
354.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
Why are you consuming any YT videos, then? Why are so many people feel entitled to YT videos without ads?
355.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
I'm not saying that hardwood floors are bad. I'm saying that PVC or laminate flooring(much more common) is absolutely not a concern for climate change. "They come from oil" is an illogical argument for durable goods. In
356.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
> generating no waste Have you ever redone flooring? Because there's definitely waste when hardwood floors are refinished. Arguably equal to replacing a segment of PVC flooring. But... The amount reflooring we do, it's not even
357.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
There's plenty of foods that fall out as well. No one is asking you to eat any intestines... but why common mushrooms, that are abundant, replaced by literally only ONE species? Your regular store will have 5 types of mushrooms, that a
358.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
Sorry, but you can't buy all offal in most American supermarkets. Living in NYC, where you can get both tripe and liver easily - you have to go to "ethnic" stores to get heart, kidneys or lungs. (I have yet to see any lungs o
359.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
>Have heard the theory that it's part of Calvinistic protestantism to avoid strong flavours That's very believable. Puritan protestants banned all kinds of things that produce "pleasure". How do you think westerners g
360.
by JAlexoid 3y ago
It's news for the "modernized" people, that scoff at offal, weird mushrooms and "unusual" foods. Only a few peoples stopped consuming traditional foods, as one might expect.

More ›